← All Phrases

“keyman insurance”

Business IncomeSection 28Section 2895 judgments

The decision most relied on for keyman insurance is CIT v. Rajan Nanda (349 ITR 8), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on keyman insurance

CIT v. Rajan Nanda
349 ITR 8 · 2012 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An insurance policy assigned by an employer to an employee loses its character as a keyman insurance policy and becomes an ordinary life insurance policy, with tax implications determined by its status at the time of assignment.

CIT v. B.N.Exports
323 ITR 178 · 2010 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Premium paid for a keyman insurance policy is allowable as a business expenditure. The fact that the maturity value of the policy is claimed as exempt by individuals does not affect the allowability of the expenditure for the company.

Judgments citing keyman insurance

Rohit Jayantilal Soni, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(100)Section 147Section 80D

received under sub-section (3) of section 80DD or sub-section of (3) of section 80DDA; or (b) any sum received under a Keyman Insurance Policy; or (c) any sum received under and insurance policy issued on or after the 1st day of April 2003 (but before the 31st

Parna Vasudevaiah, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 456/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89Section 89(1)

extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy

Maruti Keshavrao Didhore, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy

Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 6217/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, ()

Section 10Section 69Section 69A

proceeds of life insurance policy. The Ld. Assessing Officer however, observed that proceeds were in relation to maturity of a ‘keyman insurance policy' which was claimed to have been assigned to the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer noticed that tax was deducted at source on such proceeds by the life ... hence, no separate adjudication as required. 5. In relation to Ground No. 2 of the appeal, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that a 'Keyman Insurance Policy' was initially obtained by M/s. Uma Polymers Pvt. Ltd. on 24.03.2000 to cover the life risk of its key managerial personnel, namely

B.N. Exports, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1123/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S B. N. Exports Vs. Acit Range 20(1), Nightingale Chs, Bldg No. 2, Flat Piramal Chambers, Parel, No. 201, Second Floor, Hindustan Mumbai. Naka, Charkop Rd, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaafb1156E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

made 3 additions. The first addition of Rs. 31,68,785/- was disallowance which was claimed as deduction on account of payment of keyman insurance premium of the partners of assessee‟s firm. The said addition was made on the ground that assessee has not been able to prove

Jayakrishnan Gopalakrishnan, Cochin vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2(5), Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jayakrishnan Gopalakrishnan .......... Appellant Chambady House, 49/44-A, Chambady Road Elamakkara P.O., Cochin 682026 [Pan: Agupg6237H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward-2(5), Cochin

For Appellant: Shri P.T. Joy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17Section 17(3)

extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy

Shrikant Anantrao Zori, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 798/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Patakh &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

Keyтап insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (10D) of section 10; (iii) any amount due to or received, whether in lump

DCIT, CC-2(2), Nagpur vs. Atul Ramsharan Gupta, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17(3)(ii)

deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,89,000/- made by the AO on account of sum received including bonus on immature surrender of 'Keyman Insurance Policy' as profits in lieu of salary. 1 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... considering the Keyman Insurance Policy assigned as Ordinary Insurance Policy to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee has nowhere mentioned in the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2013-14 about the amount received from LIC as exempt income u/s 10(10D) of the Income

DCIT, CC-2(2), Nagpur vs. Atul Ramsharan Gupta, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 17(3)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,03,68,800/- made by the AO on account of sum received including bonus on maturity of 'Keyman Insurance Policy' as profits in lieu of salary. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Mr. Atul Hiraji Maru, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)
Section 57

total deduction of interest of Rs. 2,02,76,955/-. 4.1. The second grievance of the assessee is relating to the maturity profits from Keyman Insurance Policies which was taxed as profit in lieu of salary. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income ... policy on 31/12/2011. Thereafter, the assessee kept the policy alive till 27/03/2012 by yearly payment of premium of Rs.9,27,668/-. The Keyman Insurance policies matured on 28/02/20218 and the income was declared as income from other sources and surrender value and I.T.A. No. 2879/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 4064/Mum/2024 4 premium

Mr. Atul Hirji Maru, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2879/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)
Section 57

total deduction of interest of Rs. 2,02,76,955/-. 4.1. The second grievance of the assessee is relating to the maturity profits from Keyman Insurance Policies which was taxed as profit in lieu of salary. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income ... policy on 31/12/2011. Thereafter, the assessee kept the policy alive till 27/03/2012 by yearly payment of premium of Rs.9,27,668/-. The Keyman Insurance policies matured on 28/02/20218 and the income was declared as income from other sources and surrender value and I.T.A. No. 2879/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 4064/Mum/2024 4 premium

Parvez Mukhtar Khan, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1111/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy

Atul Shashikant Garbhe, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 89

extent to which it does 3 not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy Including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance

Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 89

extent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or interest on such contributions or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy

Metal Closures Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 941/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 148Section 28Section 36(2)(i)

insurance, chit funds, real estate, construction, transport, storage, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding and lodging; ] (vi)[ any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy. [ Inserted by Act 33 of 1996, Section 10 (w.e.f. 1.10.1996).] Explanation ... purposes of this clause, the expression "Keyman insurance policy" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (10-D) of section 10;] [ Substituted by Act 33 of 1996, Section 4, for Clause (24) (w.e.f. 1.4.1997).] [(vi-a) the fair market value of inventory as on the date on which

Doaba Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4037/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Doaba Rolling Mills Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar, Circle-1, Uttar Pradesh. Muzaffarnagar. Pan-Aabcd0822F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

account of disallowance of preliminary expenses, Addition of Rs. 312257/ on account of disallowance of depreciation, Addition of Rs. 217819 on account of Keyman Insurance and addition of Rs. 1776755 on account of interest on loan and advances in view of confirming rejection of books of accounts and the addition ... preliminary expenses of INR 6,65,856/-; partial disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,12,257/-, the disallowance out of the expenses related to Keyman Insurance expenses of INR 2,17,819/-; interest expenses of INR 17,76,755/-. Thus, the AO assessed the income of the assessee

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Poggen Amp Nagarsheth Powertronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer M/S.Poggen Amp Nagarsheth Ward-3(1)(1) Vs Powertronics Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad C-1/B, 4402, Gidc Estage Phase-Iv, Vatva Ahmedabad – 382 445, Gujarat Pan: Aaacp 9130 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

upholding order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). On Ground No. 4: 14. The assessee incurred insurance expenses of Rs.24,66,506/- in relation to Keyman Insurance Policy, where the beneficiary of such policies was assessee company and not the individual directors. The AO disallowed this expenditure concluding that the same ... Ld.CIT(A). While relying on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that Rs.19,216/- was not related with Keyman Insurance Policy and to that extent the disallowance be confirmed. He further stated that the Ld.CIT(A) has corrected deleted the disallowance of Rs.24

M/S Creations by Shanagar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 3564/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing premium of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- paid on Keyman Insurance Policy on the grounds that it is an investment plan and for the benefit of the partners rather than the appellant. On the facts and in the circumstances ... disallowance made ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, if it is held that premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policy is not deductible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act, then in the year of maturity or surrender of the said policy, the difference between

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Creation by Shanagar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 3483/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing premium of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- paid on Keyman Insurance Policy on the grounds that it is an investment plan and for the benefit of the partners rather than the appellant. On the facts and in the circumstances ... disallowance made ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, if it is held that premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policy is not deductible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act, then in the year of maturity or surrender of the said policy, the difference between

Ms Creations by Shanagar, Auro Ville, St. Andrews Road vs. DCIT, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 3269/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing premium of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- paid on Keyman Insurance Policy on the grounds that it is an investment plan and for the benefit of the partners rather than the appellant. On the facts and in the circumstances ... disallowance made ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, if it is held that premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policy is not deductible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act, then in the year of maturity or surrender of the said policy, the difference between